Part 2 — The Absolutely Essential Distinction: Wars of Aggression are not Equivalent to Wars of Self-defense
In part 1 it was stated that war is abhorrent. Most people undoubtedly would agree. However, an essential distinction must be made between/among the warring sides. Clearly, without the initiation of the violence, there would be no call for a violent self-defense. This is axiomatic and should be readily understandable to any mentally endowed person. That being the case, clearly blame, censure, and punishment should lie preponderantly with the initiator of the violence. If not for the violence of the initiator there would have been no requirement for a self-defense.
Now some might chime in to state that in lieu of violence there may still be legitimate reasons to initiate physical violence. For example, when resisting colonization, slavery, or state oppression. Yet these examples constitute violence: the violence of coercion. Thus any violence undertaken against colonization, slavery, or state oppression is, in fact, resistance to an initial existing state of violence. When no other options exist, wielding physical violence must be considered just in the case of resistance against oppressive structures. The precipitating violence in these instances is the structural, coercive violence of the oppressor. In such cases oppressed humans are faced with the prospect of living on their knees or standing up to fight.
I contend that violence borne of resistance is…